[superflyguy]

Originally Posted by Qingu

You'd think, wouldn't you? Well, I posted a link to the many observed cases of speciation. I hope you'll help convince your fellow creationists they're wrong.

What usually happens when a creaitonist is confronted with this evidence is that they will say, "okay, that's evidence of speciation, but do you have any evidence of a lizard turning into a bird? Because that's what evolution claims happens!"

(In fact, evolution does not claim that happens at all.)

At the moment, I'm not going to try to convince other creationists that speciation has been observed, because I haven't seen those results verified in other sources. I'm certain some people would claim it wasn't the same thing. But the thing makes me skeptical of this is that so many evolutionists still provide evidence of microevolution any time they're asked to give evidence of macroevolution. In fact, that's one of the easiest ways for a creationist to completely discredit evolution. The fact that those studies aren't used to devestate that creationist argument makes me doubt them, because it would be so easy, regardless of impact on the beliefs of the creationist, to sway a neutral audience by citing a valid study demonstrating speciation.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Let's say a long time ago the world was flat. Then some men from the East tried to sail to wear the gods lived in the West even after the gods told them they were forbidden to do so. So the gods get mad, move their place of living to high heaven, and bend the world up around itself so it's round instead of flat; so now men can sail as far west as they want but will only end up right back where they started. Meanwhile the resulted catastophe of the earth bending up on itself would redistribute fossils all over the geologic column.

Is this impossible? No, not with omnipotent gods who control the laws of physics. It could happen, and since it says it happened in J.R.R. Tolkien's Silmarillion, it must have happened, right?

Noah is one of the major points where what happened isn't clear from either a theological or scientific perspective. It's not so much that it must have happened, as that something happened, and theoretically it could have been anything. At least a portion of the planet recieved an unusually large amount of rain, and everything in that region flooded. I don't believe that God created an extra 14000 some feet of water just to destroy the earth. After all, if God uses natural laws, and He made those natural laws, then they're laws because He decided they should be consistent. And if He decided they should be consistent, then he wouldn't likely tamper with them. In the event that he created the world in 6 24-hour periods, it's not logical that he would have created trees without growth rings, because then why would trees today have growth rings? An analogy is the physics of throwing a ball from a tower, and the quadratic formula gives you two places it hits the ground. The quadratic formula's not lying, just being consistent. In the same way, God wouldn't be lying by making the trees have growth rings, but being consistent. From either young-earth or old-earth perspective, God is consistent. It doesen't make sense that God would spend 40 days breaking the rules he made, because from a theological perspective, Christians believe God is consistent. Our doctorine wouldn't work if He was inconsistent. At the same time, because it is theoretically possible, a Christian can't absolutely say it didn't happen.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Well, this is something we've discussed (me and Cuziam) at length on the "Did Jesus Exist" thread. I agree; I don't think a small-to-moderately popular miracle worker in Jerusalem like Jesus would have many scribes writing everything what he says, nor do I think much of these writings would survive, unadulterated or at all.

At least we both agree that on one hand there's no evidence from his lifetime while on the other hand having evidence would be illogical.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by superflyguy

At the moment, I'm not going to try to convince other creationists that speciation has been observed, because I haven't seen those results verified in other sources. I'm certain some people would claim it wasn't the same thing. But the thing makes me skeptical of this is that so many evolutionists still provide evidence of microevolution any time they're asked to give evidence of macroevolution.

There is no such thing as micro- or macro-evolution. It's a line in the sand, coined by creationists like you. When they are presented with cases of observed speciation, they say exactly what I said before: "show me lizard to bird." They call this "macro-evolution."

Show them archaeopteryx, a transitional fossil between lizards to birds, and they will say, "show me the transitional fossil between archaeopteryx and a lizard." Show them that, and they'll want another transitional fossil, and so on, until they want "micro-evolution." (Unfortunately, we don't have preserved fossils of every single living being ever.)

In fact, that's one of the easiest ways for a creationist to completely discredit evolution. The fact that those studies aren't used to devestate that creationist argument makes me doubt them, because it would be so easy, regardless of impact on the beliefs of the creationist, to sway a neutral audience by citing a valid study demonstrating speciation.

Again, you would think so, wouldn't you? Unfortunately, most people are scientifically illiterate. Also unfortunately, most people are incredibly gullible. This is why you not only get so many creationists who are swayed by charlatans like Duane Gish, but also millions of people who are convinced by paranormal psychologists that they have been abducted and sexually molested by aliens, millions of people who believe in psychics, in faith healings, etc.

Noah is one of the major points where what happened isn't clear from either a theological or scientific perspective.

What are you talking about? The Bible is very clear what happens to Noah -- after all, the Noah story is told twice in Gen 6-7. God tells Noah to build an ark about the size of a cruise liner, tells Noah to gather all the animals that existed (including the dinosaurs), and put them on that ark. There are a few contradictions between the two accounts, like whether or not Noah should take 7 of the clean animals or 2 of everything. But the gist is the same. God opens the windows of heaven (because the Hebrews believed the sky was a solid dome or firmament with water above it -- see Genesis 1) and the fountains of the deep (because there's water below the earth as well). The waters flooded the whole earth. Then, Noah lands on Mt. Ararat, which is not even close to the highest point on earth.

Which part is unclear? Which part is even possible scientifically?

In the event that he created the world in 6 24-hour periods, it's not logical that he would have created trees without growth rings, because then why would trees today have growth rings?

Wait, you're saying that God created the world with the appearance of age to trick us into believing the earth is really old?

Why would God propogate such an illusion, especially one which leads people to doubt the validity of the Bible? I thought God did not lie and was not the author of confusion.

In the same way, God wouldn't be lying by making the trees have growth rings, but being consistent.[/quote]
No, that's not consistent, that's lying. If I bring in a gun to court as evidence and then forge fingerprints and put them on the gun to make it look like an innocent man shot it, that is lying. You are saying God forged tree-rings, rock formations, (and, by extension, old starlight, though that brings with even more problems) to make natural laws consistent even though natural laws are not consistent.

a Christian can't absolutely say it didn't happen.

Argument from ignorance. "You can't say an alien doppleganger didn't impersonate me, kill the grocery store clerk, make off with the cash and lead the cops back to my apartment with my car, so that's what actually happened."

[JerryLove]

But the thing makes me skeptical of this is that so many evolutionists still provide evidence of microevolution any time they're asked to give evidence of macroevolution. In fact, that's one of the easiest ways for a creationist to completely discredit evolution.

Evidence of it? The proportional dissimilarity in midocondrial DNA related to the distance since common ancestor is evidence of "macroevolution".

The existance of "microevolution" is evidene of "macroevolution".

The formation of life into similar groups above whatever "macro" boundy you draw in the sand is evidence of "macroevolution".

The palentological record is evidence of "macroevolution"

Of course, as I've pointed out in my FAQ , "macroevoution" is a creationist word to me "on whatever order is just above the one you can prove to me".

The fact that those studies aren't used to devestate that creationist argument makes me doubt them, because it would be so easy, regardless of impact on the beliefs of the creationist, to sway a neutral audience by citing a valid study demonstrating speciation.

Where do you think American goatsbeard came from? It did not exist in the US when we colonized it, and is a different species than European goatsbeard.

We've given the studies and the cites and your appeal to ignorance is "I didn't reasearch them, and there are dozens of them, and they are easy to check, but I'll just assume them false without looking"?

It's kind-of like when Dr.Evil puts Austin Powers in an "Easily escapeable trap" and then closes the door and simply assumes he's dead.

Noah is one of the major points where what happened isn't clear from either a theological or scientific perspective.

It's pretty clear. The Hebrews copied from the Babylonians who got it from the oral tales of the flooding of the Black Sea.

At least a portion of the planet recieved an unusually large amount of rain, and everything in that region flooded

Sure thing. This happens most years in various parts of the world. I believe that the American west had that a week or two ago.

In the event that he created the world in 6 24-hour periods, it's not logical that he would have created trees without growth rings, because then why would trees today have growth rings?

Because trees today grow and 1 day old trees did not. Do you know what causes growth rings?

In the same way, God wouldn't be lying by making the trees have growth rings, but being consistent.

so God would not be lying by making signitures of growth rates which did not actuall reflect the growth-rates of a tree? I suppose you believe that Adam had scars from childhood events that never happend?

At least we both agree that on one hand there's no evidence from his lifetime while on the other hand having evidence would be illogical.

He did not say having writings would be illogical... he said it's understandable that we don't have them in light of Jesus's non-importance.

[superflyguy]

Originally Posted by Qingu

There is no such thing as micro- or macro-evolution. It's a line in the sand, coined by creationists like you. When they are presented with cases of observed speciation, they say exactly what I said before: "show me lizard to bird." They call this "macro-evolution."

Show them archaeopteryx, a transitional fossil between lizards to birds, and they will say, "show me the transitional fossil between archaeopteryx and a lizard." Show them that, and they'll want another transitional fossil, and so on, until they want "micro-evolution." (Unfortunately, we don't have preserved fossils of every single living being ever.)

Macroevolution generally involves speciation and increasing complexity. It's impossible to prove that a process nobody witnessed actually happened. Yes, you could show every transitional fossil and it would still be possible to say each had always been it's own species. The only way to prove that macroevolution happens is to induce speciation in a lab. Supposedly that's been done, but even the website admits that the scientific community generally doesen't know of any such work, and certainly hasn't subjected it to scrutiny. The issue of speciation never being observed in progress is a major thing that anevolutionists (yes, my made up word for the belief that evolution is false) always win. And all the world's brightest scientists can't figure out that all they need to do is demonstrate speciation in a lab and it's a major victory.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Again, you would think so, wouldn't you? Unfortunately, most people are scientifically illiterate. Also unfortunately, most people are incredibly gullible. This is why you not only get so many creationists who are swayed by charlatans like Duane Gish, but also millions of people who are convinced by paranormal psychologists that they have been abducted and sexually molested by aliens, millions of people who believe in psychics, in faith healings, etc.

Generally, because they're scientifically illiterate, they assume scientists have demonstrated speciation in hundreds of experiments. When they find out scientists haven't, they decide evolution is really flawed, and end up agreeing with 'teach the controversy'. Even if it wasn't perfect it'd certainly help defend the evolution perspective. Honestly, what's going to be more significant in a debate; answering a different question very well, or answering the question you were asked very well? Someone's going to notice if you answer the wrong question, and be less likely to believe you. When you are debating, there's no reason to evade what you can defeat.

[QUOTE=Qingu]What are you talking about? The Bible is very clear what happens to Noah -- after all, the Noah story is told twice in Gen 6-7. God tells Noah to build an ark about the size of a cruise liner, tells Noah to gather all the animals that existed (including the dinosaurs), and put them on that ark. There are a few contradictions between the two accounts, like whether or not Noah should take 7 of the clean animals or 2 of everything. But the gist is the same. God opens the windows of heaven (because the Hebrews believed the sky was a solid dome or firmament with water above it -- see Genesis 1) and the fountains of the deep (because there's water below the earth as well). The waters flooded the whole earth. Then, Noah lands on Mt. Ararat, which is not even close to the highest point on earth.

Which part is unclear? Which part is even possible scientifically?[QUOTE=Qingu]

Well, it's clear enough if you read it as it says it. But some people argue that any number of things from that are literary devices. It could be completely symbolic. It sounds simple enough, but if you go really far out of your way to find alternative meanings, you will almost certainly find them. What part is possibly scientific? Depends. Local flood, although not what the bible says, is definitely scientifically possible. Flood occurring really early on during exceptionally flat time period is also scientifically possible, albeit improbable.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Wait, you're saying that God created the world with the appearance of age to trick us into believing the earth is really old?

Originally Posted by Qingu

Why would God propogate such an illusion, especially one which leads people to doubt the validity of the Bible? I thought God did not lie and was not the author of confusion.

No, I'm saying that it's possible for god to have created the world with the appearance of age because it makes sense for their to be age. Trees, just by being 50 ft tall would already appear to have age just because we know trees don't grow 50ft in a single day. Biblically, there were no people who didn't know God early on in the history of the planet. They wouldn't have known all about growth rings either. Natural laws simply wouldn't make much sense if they only after a certain point in time. If transistors didn't work until yesterday, that would be prety confusing to figure out. Additionally, a realistic past allows for a realistic prediction of the future. Or there could be other reasons he would do this. If he indeed created the earth in 6 days.

Originally Posted by Qingu

No, that's not consistent, that's lying. If I bring in a gun to court as evidence and then forge fingerprints and put them on the gun to make it look like an innocent man shot it, that is lying. You are saying God forged tree-rings, rock formations, (and, by extension, old starlight, though that brings with even more problems) to make natural laws consistent even though natural laws are not consistent.

It would be much harder to comprehend the natural laws of today if we could also see the natural laws of yesterday, and it's possible that god wanted us to comprehend the natural laws he designed. If he wanted stars to form and shine on the earth within a day, he'd either have to set a higher speed of light, or put light where it would be if the stars had shone forever. So creating in 6 days would require the some of those things.

If, however, you made something that was intended to look old, and told everyone the truth that it was actually new, you wouldn't be lying. Or if you made those prints on the gun to demonstrate that prints can be forged, you wouldn't be lying. Assuming Genesis is literal; God did create the earth in 6 days, making it look old, and told everyone that it's new.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Argument from ignorance. "You can't say an alien doppleganger didn't impersonate me, kill the grocery store clerk, make off with the cash and lead the cops back to my apartment with my car, so that's what actually happened."

Well, you're trying to prove evolution is true and creationism is false, and I'm trying to prove creationism is true and it's impossible to know which subset theory is true. I have room for ignorance in my argumets because yes, presupposition that God created everything, and so it's each sub-theory vs. all the other sub-theories. I'm not trying to prove anything specific except the remote possibility of a given scenerio. Courtrooms want truth. I want possibility. So yes, our criteria are different.

[Qingu]

How did this turn into an evolution vs. creationism thread, again?

Superfly, please, start a new thread, or check out one of the millions of existing ones.

I also make a motion to bring into a creation a new law of the internet like Godwin's law:
"Over an increasing period of time on a Christian debate forum, the likelihood of the topic of creation vs. evolution coming up reaches 100%."

[JerryLove]

How did this turn into an evolution vs. creationism thread, again?

Oops, fed the troll didn't I. CvE dropped. Sorry Qingu.

[superflyguy]

Originally Posted by Qingu

How did this turn into an evolution vs. creationism thread, again?

Superfly, please, start a new thread, or check out one of the millions of existing ones.

I also make a motion to bring into a creation a new law of the internet like Godwin's law:
"Over an increasing period of time on a Christian debate forum, the likelihood of the topic of creation vs. evolution coming up reaches 100%."

How? well, I posted a response to several issues you brought up. You posted a reply. We agreed on one issue. I decided not to continue with another issue. You misinterpereted my critique of the talkorigins site, and disputed possible flood explainations. I replied to that. At that point, without either of us trying or noticing, the thread had been turned into evolution vs. creation.

I will not start a new thread because I did not intend to discuss that topic in this thread, except to point out that it's theologically irrelevant, and that the talkorigins page was not exactly supported well.

I'll second the motion to add that law.

So my appologies for letting that get off topic.

[BurntHombre]

The second installment of Miller's study is up:

Is Genesis merely a rip-off of other ANE lit? -- Part II

[BurntHombre]

Third installment is up:

Is Genesis merely a rip-off of other ANE lit? -- Part III